Environment Minister Jim Prentice and former prime minister Paul Martin both say the United States should pay for some of the environmental costs of Alberta's oilsands, to help fight climate change.
"At the end of the day, if American consumers buy Canadian oil and consume it in the United States ... the environmental compliance cost should really be absorbed on the United States' side of the border," he said in a phone interview with Â鶹´«Ã½ Channel from Copenhagen.
"So that's why we're working so closely with the United States, so that we have a harmonized system here -- that we do this on a continental basis so that we don't get those kinds of difficulties where environmental costs are now downloaded onto us as Canadians because that's not fair."
Martin has also been quoted as saying the U.S. should shoulder some of Canada's carbon emissions burden because it is the primary buyer and user of energy from the oilsands.
He also says he supports development of the oilsands, but that it should proceed at a "rational pace."
The comments come at a time when Canada is being perceived as a barrier towards coming to an agreement at the Copenhagen summit, where world leaders are trying to reach a deal on actions to stop climate change.
It has won at least five Fossil Awards -- prizes meant to embarrass countries that are seen to have dragged their feet on the issue.
The prizes are given by a coalition of environmental groups.
Canadian Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, who is in Copenhagen, told CTV's Question Period that Canada has lost its reputation as a global leader on the environment.
"We're generally seen here to be a non-participant, not an important player because our role has only been to obstruct progress," she said. "It's very sad compared to where we used to be in terms of our international reputation."
Political analysts are accusing the Canadian government of following the United States' lead on how to fight climate change.
Canada's Ambassador to the U.S., Gary Doer, said following the Americans' lead "makes sense."
"Certainly it makes sense for Canada and the U.S. to be working in harmony, whether it's the acid rain agreement a number of years ago, or the new tailpipe emission standards across our two borders, it makes sense to work together," he told Question Period.
He said that it is not clear yet if regional, ideological, and other differences in the U.S. senate could hamper a proposed U.S. cap and trade deal and whether this could affect Canada's position.
"There may be an agreed upon target and there may be different ways to get there. I think that's still an unknown question," he said, explaining Canada also needs to watch what initiatives developing nations like China and India take, and not just the U.S.
He also said that coming up with a deal will likely be the easier part of the process.
"It won't be just a manner of signing something," he said. "It'll be a lot of effort in implementing it."
A draft accord, released Friday at the summit, calls for wealthy nations to cut emissions by 20 to 40 per cent by 2020. This would pave the way to reaching a broader goal of reducing worldwide greenhouse gas emissions by 50 to 95 per cent over the next 40 years.
To achieve both goals, 1990 emissions would be used as the baseline year.
However, representatives from the U.S., the European Union, Japan and Australia balked at the figures and criticized the pact for failing to address greenhouse gas emissions by emerging economies.
India has pledged to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 20 to 25 per cent by 2020, while China has also said it will reduce emissions, but does not want to be legally bound by specific targets.
